Limbic capitalism is a great way to describe how much marketing appeals to what we want rather than what we need. I too would pay for features that scrub these thin desires from my user experience on the internet. I foresee this demand growing as more and more people recognize and vocalize the drawbacks of social media and the internet. Great essay Chip - ideas like this inspire us to make the world a better place
The internet is comprised of layers. Your experience on the internet is generally highly customizable. The barrier to the internet you desire is partly technical and partly convenience.
The $1000 super computer in your hand with locked firmware is preventing you from customizing that experience, largely because they are deferent to developers, perhaps rightfully so.
Much of this could be addressed at the application layer, but as you correctly note, the incentives are misaligned. Application developers companies can build in the ability to hide certain features, and charge a premium for said services. Hybrid payment systems (usage based & fixed rate for services) is on the rise in enterprise software. The future you envision is an eventuality.
That being said, this discourse is valuable, and I am sure this conversation is occurring on some UX/UI forum. Because yeah the internet as most consumers use it is a bit dystopian.
Aug 26, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Chip Parkhurst
First of all, I was very proud of that essay and the response to it was a bit muted so I was very moved to see it resonating strongly with someone, but man did you ever catch my pass and slam-dunk it!
You said: "Capitalism is actually failing to do its thing effectively in this case". Yes absolutely. Where are the competitors? What we're seeing is more like a sort of techno-feudalism situation. What are supposed to be middlemen have more control over transactions than even the two interested parties.
I actually am a big advocate for paying for one's news (and not in a charitable "because society needs journalists" sense). My reasoning is that the journalists, editors, etc are more likely to feel beholden to subscribers' desires (ie: facts, and an understanding of them), not advertisers (ie: raw "engagement") when subscribers pay their salaries. There's no clickbait, and much more fact-checking when you pay for it. Good news is "whole grain".
That said I suspect the reason social media companies don't generally paywall everything is because they know their product just ...isn't worth it. It gets consumed because it's easy and available full stop. As much as I'd like a "YouTube without shorts" or "Instagram without stories" I feel the smarter option is just "no YouTube" if it comes to it. Why pay for "cake without frosting" when libraries have healthier options for free?
PS- if you're in a browser "DF YouTube" is a great extension that can block shorts.
Thanks so much for reading and your thoughtful reply.
You should be proud of that essay. It really jumped out at me from the sea of text I read every day, from the first paragraph onward. And I’m trying to become better at paying for information! I’m just always fighting my own expectations.
You might be right on YouTube. It’s my favorite of the big socials, and I consider it in somewhat of a different category. It is generally a better place to start to learn though, compared to the other options (except maybe Wikipedia).
Aug 26, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Chip Parkhurst
Y'know as I was typing out that comment I realized that I'm so ad-numb I didn't realize all my favorite YouTubers are constantly advertising that they're on Nebula or CuriosityStream. Hadn't even considered looking into those services until now.
Limbic capitalism is a great way to describe how much marketing appeals to what we want rather than what we need. I too would pay for features that scrub these thin desires from my user experience on the internet. I foresee this demand growing as more and more people recognize and vocalize the drawbacks of social media and the internet. Great essay Chip - ideas like this inspire us to make the world a better place
Thank you, Victor! It’s weird to ask for more ways to spend money on services but hopefully that’s an option in the future.
The internet is comprised of layers. Your experience on the internet is generally highly customizable. The barrier to the internet you desire is partly technical and partly convenience.
The $1000 super computer in your hand with locked firmware is preventing you from customizing that experience, largely because they are deferent to developers, perhaps rightfully so.
Much of this could be addressed at the application layer, but as you correctly note, the incentives are misaligned. Application developers companies can build in the ability to hide certain features, and charge a premium for said services. Hybrid payment systems (usage based & fixed rate for services) is on the rise in enterprise software. The future you envision is an eventuality.
That being said, this discourse is valuable, and I am sure this conversation is occurring on some UX/UI forum. Because yeah the internet as most consumers use it is a bit dystopian.
First of all, I was very proud of that essay and the response to it was a bit muted so I was very moved to see it resonating strongly with someone, but man did you ever catch my pass and slam-dunk it!
You said: "Capitalism is actually failing to do its thing effectively in this case". Yes absolutely. Where are the competitors? What we're seeing is more like a sort of techno-feudalism situation. What are supposed to be middlemen have more control over transactions than even the two interested parties.
I actually am a big advocate for paying for one's news (and not in a charitable "because society needs journalists" sense). My reasoning is that the journalists, editors, etc are more likely to feel beholden to subscribers' desires (ie: facts, and an understanding of them), not advertisers (ie: raw "engagement") when subscribers pay their salaries. There's no clickbait, and much more fact-checking when you pay for it. Good news is "whole grain".
That said I suspect the reason social media companies don't generally paywall everything is because they know their product just ...isn't worth it. It gets consumed because it's easy and available full stop. As much as I'd like a "YouTube without shorts" or "Instagram without stories" I feel the smarter option is just "no YouTube" if it comes to it. Why pay for "cake without frosting" when libraries have healthier options for free?
PS- if you're in a browser "DF YouTube" is a great extension that can block shorts.
Thanks so much for reading and your thoughtful reply.
You should be proud of that essay. It really jumped out at me from the sea of text I read every day, from the first paragraph onward. And I’m trying to become better at paying for information! I’m just always fighting my own expectations.
You might be right on YouTube. It’s my favorite of the big socials, and I consider it in somewhat of a different category. It is generally a better place to start to learn though, compared to the other options (except maybe Wikipedia).
Y'know as I was typing out that comment I realized that I'm so ad-numb I didn't realize all my favorite YouTubers are constantly advertising that they're on Nebula or CuriosityStream. Hadn't even considered looking into those services until now.